Teacher experiences and understanding of citizen science in Australian classrooms

Larissa Braz Sousa; Ciara Kenneally; Yaela Golumbic; John M. Martin; Christine Preston; Peter Rutledge; Alice Motion

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0312680

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 8, 2024
24 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - José Gutiérrez-Pérez, Editor PONE-D-23-42215Teacher experiences and understanding of citizen science in Australian classroomsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Braz Sousa, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 06 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, José Gutiérrez-Pérez Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. 3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. The American Journal Experts (AJE) (https://www.aje.com/) is one such service that has extensive experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. Please note that having the manuscript copyedited by AJE or any other editing services does not guarantee selection for peer review or acceptance for publication. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file)” 4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 5. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly. 6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The manuscript explores teacher experiences and their understanding of citizen science in Australian classrooms using mixed-methods approach of questionnaires with descriptive data. Through the data collected, the authors analyse teachers’ past experience of citizen science, perceived barriers in implementing such projects in school, and their views on supportive policies or resources to increase participation of teachers in citizen science. The findings point to some interesting insights such as rural schools being more engaged in citizen science, possibly due to proximity to nature as discussed by the authors. However, there may be other factors that might need additional probing. Lack of awareness regarding citizen science projects and absence of clear alignment with curricula were cited as barriers to implementation by a majority of teachers, as compared to lack of infrastructure. Overall, the manuscript provides a fairly descriptive account of the contours citizen science projects in schools through teachers, but as a reader, there is an expectation for more in-depth analysis regarding the issues mentioned. For instance, the authors mention bird counting projects as being most popular. What features of this activity allows better engagement at teacher and student level? Are citizen science projects a part of teacher professional development or preparation courses? What assumptions do the authors hold when they question teachers regarding their knowledge of citizen science? Similarly, are there any citizen science projects developed with an explicit focus on pedagogy? The descriptive data presented isn’t entirely unexpected, and the questions raised call for some suggestions regarding curricular mapping. It would be extremely useful if the authors could provide a rudimentary framework for such mapping using some illustrative examples from middle-school science subjects based on the responses received. I understand that these are broad suggestions, and it may not be possible to address them all. However, the main aim here to push the authors to go beyond the descriptive data and expand on possible discussions. I would argue that the real value-addition of the manuscript lies in outlining the possibilities that could form a part of future policies and teacher preparation courses. Reviewer #2: The manuscript addresses a topic of high contemporary interest. The literature review is current and appropriate to the topic. The methodological approach, from a mixed approach, allows us to answer several questions: investigated four focal research questions: 1) What knowledge and experience do teachers have of citizen science? 2) How have teachers used citizen science in their personal lives and with their students? 3) What are the barriers to citizen science implementation in schools and its broader use? and 4) What would encourage and support the future participation of teachers in citizen science? It is suggested that the authors attend in more detail to the quality criteria of the instrument used. Mention is made of the content validity process of the instrument, but no relevant information about the reliability of the instrument is appreciated. We suggest to the authors a complementary analysis of the grouping of the items (e.g. exploratory factor analysis) that would provide relevant information for potential replications of the study, increasing its international interest. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Deborah Dutta Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312680.r001
Revision 1
20 Sep 2024 Author Response Response to reviewers’ comments Reviewer #1: 1. For instance, the authors mention bird counting projects as being most popular. What features of this activity allows better engagement at teacher and student level? Thank you for your valuable comment. This has been addressed on lines 435-443. Teachers’ preferences for species and environmental monitoring initiatives may be attributed to their accessibility and ease of participation. Historically, these types of citizen science projects have been among the earliest and most widely available initiatives (Miller-Rushing et al., 2012). Nonetheless, the flexibility in observation methods reduces teachers’ and schools’ constraints, such as time, safety, and accessibility to resources (Silvertown, 2009, Wood et al., 2011). Such projects are typically free or low-cost and require only basic equipment, such as notebooks, or computers or tablets, for capturing and uploading local data to platforms like eBird and iNaturalist (Soanes et al., 2020, Dickinson et al., 2012). We note that, where possible, it is often preferable if students collect and immediately input information using smartphones or tablets through project-specific apps or websites. 2. Are citizen science projects a part of teacher professional development or preparation courses? This question has been addressed on lines 491-506. Critically, teachers reported that they wanted a more clear understanding on how the data being contributed to citizen science projects apply to real life. Teachers shared that they would like to have specific training in citizen science with school and research institution support. These results link to the main barriers to using citizen science in schools, especially to the lack of knowledge of available programs. Thus, engaging the current and next generations of teachers with regard to the benefits of school-based citizen science could expand its implementation in Australia. As such, we recommend a Unit of Study in citizen science designed and delivered for undergraduate education students (teachers in training) to support the long-term sustainability of school-based citizen science in Australia. Although citizen science projects are starting to be integrated into teacher professional development and preparation courses, such initiatives are still relatively scarce in the literature. In 2022, five universities in Spain engaged over 350 pre-service Early Childhood and Primary Teachers in a soil health citizen science program (Eugenio-Gozalbo et al., 2022), while a university in South Australia provided professional learning in species monitoring to middle school teachers (Paige et al., 2015). Additional local initiatives worldwide have demonstrated the benefits of such programs (Scheuch et al., 2018, Huffling and Scott, 2021), underscoring the need for broader implementation of professional development opportunities in citizen science for teachers in Australia and globally (Roche et al., 2020, Harlin et al., 2018). 3. What assumptions do the authors hold when they question teachers regarding their knowledge of citizen science? This question has been addressed on lines 166-170. When questioning teachers regarding their knowledge of citizen science, the authors assume teachers to have varying levels of familiarity with the concept and practice of citizen science and that teachers’ understanding of citizen science may influence their willingness and ability to incorporate such projects into their teaching practices. 4. Similarly, are there any citizen science projects developed with an explicit focus on pedagogy? Thank you for your question. It has been added to the lines 74-79. There are, however, limited examples of f citizen science projects that are designed to integrate pedagogical objectives and approaches, aiming to enhance teaching practices and learning outcomes within educational settings (Harlin et al., 2018, Bopardikar et al., 2023). Examples include programs that provide structured teaching resources and adaptable lessons to support schools’ pedagogical practices and curricula (Kocman et al., 2020, Bopardikar et al., 2023). Such programs have been especially reported in the fields of environmental science and biodiversity (Spicer et al., 2020, Aivelo, 2023). 5. The descriptive data presented isn’t entirely unexpected, and the questions raised call for some suggestions regarding curricular mapping. It would be extremely useful if the authors could provide a rudimentary framework for such mapping using some illustrative examples from middle-school science subjects based on the responses received. Thank you for the suggestion. The initial framework developed by our team has been added to lines 469-482. Additionally, this study identified a lack of curriculum alignment as the main barrier to citizen science implementation in classrooms. Developing a framework that explicitly maps citizen science projects to educational standards is crucial for overcoming this obstacle and facilitating effective classroom integration. Previous research has developed resources to align citizen science projects with the Australian curriculum, aiding teachers in classroom implementation (Learning By Doing, 2021b). Various citizen science projects were mapped to the NSW Stage 4 syllabus themes (Physical World, Earth and Space, Living World, and Chemical World) while also highlighting their contributions to skill development and curriculum integration. This guide illustrates how the Big City Birds project, for instance, aligns with the Australian curriculum outcome SC414LW: relating the structure and function of living things to their classification, survival, and reproduction (Learning By Doing, 2021a). Developed by [YG], [CP], and [AM], this resource represents the initial phase of the Learning By Doing initiative. Future steps will include: 1) detailed curriculum mapping, 2) expanding to additional educational stages, and 3) aligning with syllabi in other Australian states and territories. Reviewer #2: 1. It is suggested that the authors attend in more detail to the quality criteria of the instrument used. Mention is made of the content validity process of the instrument, but no relevant information about the reliability of the instrument is appreciated. We suggest to the authors a complementary analysis of the grouping of the items (e.g. exploratory factor analysis) that would provide relevant information for potential replications of the study, increasing its international interest. Thank you for your suggestion. While exploratory factor analysis (EFA) can be a valuable tool for identifying underlying structures within a dataset, it may not be suitable for our data. Our study is focused on categorical variables, and EFA is typically more appropriate for continuous data where underlying factors are being explored. Therefore, applying EFA in this context may not yield meaningful results. To enhance the study’s replicability and international relevance, other approaches more aligned with the nature of our data would be advisable. For the context of our study, we used Expert Review with Taronga Zoo teachers to validate the content of our research instrument. We recommend that researchers in other countries validate the questionnaire by inviting a small cohort of local or national teachers to review the instrument and suggest adaptations based on local contexts. This has been added to our discussion on lines 418-423. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Braz_Sousa_responses_to_reviewers.docx .docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312680.r002
11 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - José Gutiérrez-Pérez, Editor Teacher experiences and understanding of citizen science in Australian classrooms PONE-D-23-42215R1 Dear Dr. Braz, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, José Gutiérrez-Pérez Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312680.r003
Formally Accepted
31 Oct 2024 Acceptance Letter - José Gutiérrez-Pérez, Editor PONE-D-23-42215R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Braz Sousa, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. José Gutiérrez-Pérez Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312680.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .